I have already shown--it may be necessary to remind the reader--that
there are two modes of removing the wet refuse of the metropolis: the
one by carrying it off by means of sewers, or, as it is designated,
_sewerage_; and the other by depositing it in some neighbouring
cesspool, or what is termed _cesspoolage_.
The object of sewerage is “to transport the wet refuse of a town to a
river, or some powerfully current stream, by a series of ducts.” By the
system of cesspoolage, the wet refuse of the household is collected
in an adjacent tank, and when the reservoir is full, the contents are
removed to some other part.
[Illustration: LONDON NIGHTMEN.
[_From a Daguerreotype by_ BEARD.]]
The gross quantity of wet refuse annually produced in the metropolis,
and which consequently has to be removed by one or other of the above
means, is, as we have seen,--liquid, 24,000,000,000 gallons; solid,
100,000 tons; or altogether, by admeasurement, 3,820,000,000 cubic feet.
The quantity of this wet refuse which finds its way into the sewers
by street and house-drainage is, according to the experiments of the
Commissioners of Sewers (as detailed at p. 388), 10,000,000 cubic feet
per day, or 3,650,000,000 cubic feet per annum, so that there remain
about 170,000,000 cubic feet to be accounted for. But, as we have
before seen, the extent of surface from which the amount of so-called
_Metropolitan_ sewage was _removed_ was only 58 square miles, whereas
that from which the calculation was made concerning the gross quantity
of wet refuse _produced_ throughout the metropolis was 115 square
miles, or double the size. The 58 miles measured by the Commissioners,
however, was by far the denser moiety of the town, and that in which
the houses and streets were as 15 to 1; so that, allowing the remaining
58 miles of the suburban districts to have produced 20 times less
sewage than the urban half of the metropolis, the extra yield would
have been about 180,500,000 cubic feet. But the greater proportion,
if not the whole, of the latter quantity of wet house-refuse would be
drained into open ditches, where a considerable amount of evaporation
and absorption is continually going on, so that a large allowance must
be made for loss by these means. Perhaps, if we estimate the quantity
of sewage thus absorbed and evaporated at between 10 and 20 per cent of
the whole, we shall not be wide of the truth, so that we shall have to
reduce the 182,000,000 cubic feet of suburban sewage to somewhere about
150,000,000 cubic feet.
This gives us the quantity of wet refuse carried off by the sewers
(covered and open) of the metropolis, and deducted from the gross
quantity of wet house-refuse, annually _produced_ (3,820,000,000 cubic
feet), leaves 20,000,000 cubic feet for the gross quantity carried
off by other means than the sewers; that is to say, the 20,000,000
cubic feet, if the calculation be right, should be about the quantity
deposited every year in the London cesspools. Let us see whether this
approximates to anything like the real quantity.
To ascertain the absolute quantity of wet refuse annually conveyed into
the metropolitan cesspools, we must first ascertain the number and
capacity of the cesspools themselves.
Of the city of London, where the sewer-cesspool details are given with
a minuteness highly commendable, as affording statistical data of great
value, Mr. Heywood gives us the following returns:--
“HOUSE-DRAINAGE OF THE CITY.
“The total number of premises
drained during the year was 310
“The approximate number of
premises drained at the expiration
of the year 1850 was 10,923
“The total number of premises
which may now therefore be said
to be drained is 11,233
“And undrained 5,067
“I am induced,” adds Mr. Heywood, “to believe, from the reports of
the district inspectors, that a very far larger number of houses are
already drained than are herein given. Indeed my impression is, that as
many as 3000 might be deducted from the 5067 houses as to the drainage
of which you have no information.
“Now, until the inspectors have completed their survey of the whole
of the houses within the city,” continues the City surveyor, “precise
information cannot be given as to the number of houses yet undrained;
such information appears to me very important to obtain speedily, and
I beg to recommend that instructions be given to the inspectors to
proceed with their survey as rapidly as possible.”
Hence it appears, that out of the 16,299 houses comprised within the
boundaries of the City, rather less than one-third are _reported_ to
have cesspools. Concerning the number of cesspools without the City,
the Board of Health, in a Report on the cholera in 1849, put forward
one of its usual _extraordinary_ statements.
“At the last census in 1841,” runs the Report, “there were 270,859
houses in the metropolis. _It is_ KNOWN _that there is scarcely a house
without a cesspool under it, and that a large number have two, three,
four, and_ MORE _under them_; so that the number of such receptacles
in the metropolis may be taken at 300,000. The exposed surface of each
cesspool measures on an average 9 feet, and the mean depth of the
whole is about 6-1/2 feet; so that each contains 58-1/2 cubic feet of
fermenting filth of the most poisonous, noisome, and disgusting nature.
The exhaling surface of all the cesspools (300,000 × 9) = 2,700,000
feet, or equal to 62 acres nearly; and the total quantity of foul
matter contained within them (300,000 × 58-1/2) = 17,550,000 cubic
feet; or equal to one enormous elongated stagnant cesspool 50 feet in
width, 6 feet 6 inches in depth, and extending through London from the
Broadway at Hammersmith to Bow-bridge, a length of 10 miles.
“This,” say the Metropolitan Sanitary Commissioners, a body of
functionaries so intimately connected with the Board, that the one is
ever ready to swear to what the other asserts, “there is reason to
believe is an _under estimate!_”
Let us now compare this statement, which declares it to be _known_ that
there is scarcely a house in London without a cesspool, and that many
have two, three, four, and even more under them--let us compare this,
I say, with the facts which were elicited by the same functionaries
by means of a house-to-house inquiry in three different parishes--a
poor, a middle-class, and a rich one--the average rental of each being
22_l._, 119_l._, and 128_l._
RESULTS OF A HOUSE-TO-HOUSE INQUIRY IN THE PARISHES OF ST. GEORGE THE
MARTYR, SOUTHWARK, ST. ANNE’S, SOHO, AND ST. JAMES’S, AS TO THE STATE
OF THE WORKS OF WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE.
----------------------------------------------+---------------------------
| PARISHES.
+----------+-------+--------
CONDITION OF THE HOUSES. | St George| |
| the | St. | St.
| Martyr, |Anne’s,|James’s.
|Southwark.| Soho. |
----------------------------------------------+----------+-------+--------
From which replies have been | | |
received (Number) | 5,713 | 1,339 | 2,960
| | |
_With supply of Water_-- | | |
To the house or premises (Per cent)| 80·97 | 95·56 | 96·48
Near the privy „ | 48·87 | 38·99 | 43·42
Butts or cisterns, covered (Number) | 1,879 | 776 | 1,621
„ „ uncovered „ | 2,074 | 294 | 393
With a sink (Per cent)| 48·31 | 89·29 | 86·70
| | |
_With a Well_-- | | |
On or near premises „ | 5·32 | 13·97 | 13·85
Well tainted or foul „ | 46·92 | 3·71 | 7·36
Houses damp in lower parts „ | 52·13 | 30·90 | 26·67
Houses with stagnant water on | | |
premises „ | 18·54 | 7·95 | 2·95
Houses flooded in times of storm „ | 18·15 | 5·04 | 4·05
| | |
_Houses with Drain_-- | | |
To premises „ | 87·56 | 97·12 | 96·42
Houses with drains emitting | | |
offensive smells „ | 45·11 | 37·62 | 21·41
Houses with drains stopped at times „ | 22·37 | 28·50 | 13·97
Houses with dust-bin „ | 42·69 | 92·34 | 89·80
Houses receiving offensive smells from | | |
adjoining premises „ | 27·82 | 22·54 | 16·74
Houses with privy „ | 97·03 | 70·63 | 62·53
_Houses with cesspool_ „ | 82·12 | 47·27 | 36·62
Houses with water-closet „ | 10·06 | 45·99 | 65·86
----------------------------------------------+----------+-------+--------
In this minute and searching investigation there is not only an
official guide to an estimation of the number of cesspools in London,
but a curious indication of the character of the houses in the
respective parishes. In the poorer parish of St. George the Martyr,
Southwark, the cesspools were to every 100 houses as 82·12; in the
aristocratic parish of St. James, Westminster, as only 36·62; while in
what may be represented, perhaps, as the middle-class parish of St.
Anne, Soho, the cesspools were 47·27 per cent. The number of wells on
or near the premises, and the proportion of those tainted; the ratio of
the dampness of the lower parts of the houses, of the stagnant water on
the premises, and of the flooding of the houses on occasions of storms,
are all significant indications of the difference in the circumstances
of the inhabitants of these parishes--of the difference between the
abodes of the rich and the poor, the capitalists and the labouring
classes. But more significant still, perhaps, of the domestic wants or
comforts of these dwellings, is the proportion of water-closets to the
houses in the poor parish and the rich; in the one they were but 10·06
per cent; in the other 65·86 per cent.
These returns are sufficient to show the extravagance of the Board’s
previous statement, that there is “scarcely a house in London without
a cesspool under it,” while “a large number have two, three, four, and
more,” for we find that even in the poorer parishes there are only 82
cesspools to 100 houses. Moreover, the engineers, after an official
examination and inquiry, reported that in the “fever-nest, known as
Jacob’s-island, Bermondsey,” there were 1317 dwelling-houses and 648
cesspools, or not quite 50 cesspools to 100 houses.
In rich, middle-class, and poor parishes, the proportion of cesspools,
then, it appears from the _inquiries_ of the Board of Health (their
_guesses_ are of no earthly value), gives us an average of something
between 50 or 60 cesspools to every 100 houses. A subordinate officer
whom I saw, and who was engaged in the cleansing and the filling-up
of cesspools when condemned, or when the houses are to be drained
anew into the sewers and the cesspools abolished, thought from his
own experience, the number of cesspools to be less than one-half, but
others thought it more.
On the other hand, a nightman told me he was confident that every two
houses in three throughout London had cesspools; in the City, however,
we perceive that there is, at the utmost, only one house in every three
undrained. It will, therefore, be safest to adopt a middle course, and
assume 50 per cent of the houses of the metropolis to be still without
drainage into the sewers.
Now the number of houses being 300,000, it follows that the number
of cesspools within the area of the metropolis are about 150,000;
consequently the next step in the investigation is to ascertain the
average capacity of each, and so arrive at the gross quantity of wet
house-refuse annually deposited in cesspools throughout London.
The average size of the cesspools throughout the metropolis is said, by
the Board of Health, to be 9 feet by 6-1/2, which gives a capacity of
58-1/2 cubic feet, and this for 150,000 houses = 8,775,000 cubic feet.
But according to all accounts these cesspools require on an average
two years to fill, so that the gross quantity of wet refuse annually
deposited in such places can be taken at only half the above quantity,
viz. in round numbers, 4,500,000 cubic feet. This by weight, at the
rate of 35·9 cubic feet to the ton, gives 125,345 tons. This, however,
would appear to be of a piece with the generality of the statistics of
the Board of Health, and as wide of the truth as was the statement that
there was scarcely a house in London without a cesspool, while many
had _three, four, and even more_. But I am credibly informed that the
average size of a cesspool is rather more than 5 feet square and 6-1/2
deep, so that the ordinary capacity would be 5-3/4 × 5-1/4 × 6-1/2
= 197 cubic feet, and this multiplied by 150,000 gives an aggregate
capacity of 29,550,000 cubit feet. But as the cesspools, according
to all accounts, become full only once in two years, it follows that
the gross quantity of cesspoolage annually deposited throughout the
metropolis must be only one-half that quantity, or about 14,775,000
cubic feet.
The calculation may be made another way, viz. by the experience of the
nightmen and the sewer-cesspoolmen as to the average quantity of refuse
removed from the London cesspools whenever emptied, as well as the
average number emptied yearly.
The contents of a cesspool are never estimated for any purpose of sale
or labour by the weight, but always, as regards the nightmen’s work, by
the load. Each night-cart load of soil is considered, on an average, a
ton in weight, so that the nightmen readily estimate the number of tons
by the number of cart-loads obtained. The men employed in the cleansing
of the cesspools by the new system of pumping agree with the nightmen
as to the average contents of a cesspool.
As a general rule, a cesspool is filled every two years, and holds,
when full, about five tons. One man, who had been upwards of 30 years
in the nightman’s business, who had worked at it more or less all
that time himself, and who is now foreman to a parish contractor and
master-nightman in a large way, spoke positively on the subject. The
cesspools, he declared, were emptied, as an average, by nightmen, once
in two years, and their average contents were five loads of night-soil,
it having been always understood in the trade that a night-cartload
was about a ton.[72] The total of the cesspool matter is not affected
by the frequency or paucity of the cleansing away of the filth, for if
one cesspool be emptied yearly, another is emptied every second, third,
fourth, or fifth year, and, according to the size, the fair average
is five tons of cesspoolage emptied from each every other year. One
master-nightman had emptied as much as fourteen tons of night-soil
from a cesspool or soil-tank, and a contractor’s man had once emptied
as many as eighteen tons, but both agreed as to the average of
five tons every two years from all. Neither knew the period of the
accumulation of the fourteen or the eighteen tons, but supposed to be
about five or six years.
According to this mode of estimate, the quantity of wet house-refuse
deposited in cesspools would be equal to 150,000 × 5, or 750,000 tons
every two years. This, by admeasurement, at the rate of 35·9 cubic
feet to the ton, gives 26,925,000 cubic feet; and as this is the
accumulation of two years, it follows that 13,462,500 cubic feet is the
quantity of cesspoolage deposited yearly.
There is still another mode of checking this estimate.
I have already given (see p. 385, _ante_) the average production of
each individual to the wet refuse of the metropolis. According to the
experiments of Boussingault, confirmed by Liebig, this, as I have
stated, amounted to 1/4 lb. of solid and 1-1/4 lb. of liquid excrement
from each individual per diem (= 150 lbs. for every 100 persons),
while, including the wet refuse from culinary operations, the average
yield, according to the surveyor of the Commissioners of Sewers, was
equal to about 250 lbs. for every 100 individuals daily. I may add that
this calculation was made officially, with engineering minuteness, with
a view to ascertain what quantity of water, and what inclination in
its flow, would be required for the effective working of a system of
drainage to supersede the cesspools.[73] Now the census of 1841 shows
us that the average number of inhabitants to each house throughout the
metropolis was 7·6, and this for 150,000 houses would give 1,140,000
people; consequently the gross quantity of wet refuse proceeding from
this number of persons, at the rate of 250 lbs. to every 100 people
daily, would be 464,400 tons per annum; or, by admeasurement, at the
rate of 35·9 cubic feet to the ton, it would be equal to 16,670,950
cubic feet.
A small proportion of this amount of cesspoolage ultimately makes its
appearance in the sewers, being pumped into them directly from the
cesspools when full by means of a special apparatus, and thus tends not
only to swell the bulk of sewage, but to decrease in a like proportion
the aggregate quantity of wet house-refuse, which is removed by
cartage; but though the proportion of cesspoolage which finally appears
as sewage is daily increasing, still it is but trifling compared with
the quantity removed by cartage.
Here, then, we have three different estimates as to the gross quantity
of the London cesspoolage, each slightly varying from the other two.
The first, drawn from the Cubic Feet.
average capacity of the London
cesspools, makes the gross
annual amount of cesspoolage 14,775,000
The second, deduced from
the average quantity removed
from each cesspool 13,462,500
And the third, calculated
from the individual production
of wet refuse 16,670,950
The mean of these three results is, in round numbers, 15,000,000 cubic
feet, so that the statement would stand thus:--
The quantity of wet house-refuse
annually carried off by
sewers (chiefly covered) from
the urban moiety of the metropolis
is (in cubic feet) 3,650,000,000
The quantity annually carried
off by sewers (principally
open) from the suburban moiety
of the metropolis 150,000,000
-------------
The total amount of wet
house-refuse annually carried
off by the sewers of the metropolis
3,800,000,000
The gross amount of wet
house-refuse annually deposited
in cesspools throughout
the metropolis 15,000,000
-------------
The total amount of sewage
and cesspoolage of the metropolis
3,815,000,000
Thus we perceive that the total quantity of wet house-refuse annually
_removed_, corresponds so closely with the gross quantity of wet
house-refuse annually _produced_, that we may briefly conclude the
gross sewage of London to be equal to 3,800,000,000 cubic feet, and the
gross cesspoolage to be equal to 15,000,000 cubic feet.
The accuracy of the above conclusion may be tested by another process;
for, unless the Board of Health’s conjectural mode of getting at
_facts_ be adopted, it is absolutely necessary that statistics not only
upon this, but indeed any subject, be checked by all the different
modes there may be of arriving at the same conclusion. False facts are
worse than no facts at all.